Excerpts From Supreme Court Ruling in U.S. v. Virginia

Following are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court's majority,
concurring, and dissenting opinions in U.S. v. Virginia.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court.

Virginia's public institutions of higher learning include an
incomparable military college, Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The
United States maintains that the Constitution's equal-protection
guarantee precludes Virginia from reserving exclusively to men the
unique educational opportunities VMI affords. We agree.

Founded in 1839, VMI is today the sole single-sex school among
Virginia's 15 public institutions of higher learning. VMI's distinctive
mission is to produce "citizen soldiers,'' men prepared for leadership
in civilian life and in military service. VMI pursues this mission
through pervasive training of a kind not available anywhere else in
Virginia. Assigning prime place to character development, VMI uses an
"adversative method'' modeled on English public schools and once
characteristic of military instruction. VMI constantly endeavors to
instill physical and mental discipline in its cadets and impart to them
a strong moral code. The school's graduates leave VMI with heightened
comprehension of their capacity to deal with duress and stress, and a
large sense of accomplishment for completing the hazardous course.
...

Neither the goal of producing citizen-soldiers nor VMI's
implementing methodology is inherently unsuitable to women. And the
school's impressive record in producing leaders has made admission
desirable to some women. Nevertheless, Virginia has elected to preserve
exclusively for men the advantages and opportunities a VMI education
affords. ...

The cross-petitions in this case present two ultimate issues. First,
does Virginia's exclusion of women from the educational opportunities
provided by VMI--extraordinary opportunities for military training and
civilian leadership development--deny to women capable of all of the
individual activities required of VMI cadets the equal protection of
the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Second, if VMI's "unique''
situation as Virginia's sole single-sex public institution of higher
education offends the Constitution's equal-protection principle, what
is the remedial requirement?

We note, once again, the core instruction of this court's
pathmarking decisions in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) and
Mississippi University for Women [v. Hogan (1982)]: Parties who seek to
defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an "exceedingly
persuasive justification'' for that action.

Today's skeptical scrutiny of official action denying rights or
opportunities based on sex responds to volumes of history. As a
plurality of this court acknowledged a generation ago, "our nation has
had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination,'' Frontiero
v. Richardson (1973). Through a century plus three decades and more of
that history, women did not count among voters composing "We the
People''; not until 1920 did women gain a constitutional right to the
franchise. And for a half-century thereafter, it remained the
prevailing doctrine that government, both federal and state, could
withhold from women opportunities accorded men so long as any "basis in
reason'' could be conceived for the discrimination. ...

Measuring the record in this case against the review standard just
described, we conclude that Virginia has shown no "exceedingly
persuasive justification'' for excluding all women from the
citizen-soldier training afforded by VMI. We therefore affirm the [U.S.
Court of Appeals for the] 4th Circuit's initial judgment, which held
that Virginia had violated the 14th Amendment's equal-protection
clause. Because the remedy proffered by Virginia--the [Virginia Women's
Institute for Leadership (VWIL) program at Mary Baldwin College]--does
not cure the constitutional violation, i.e., it does not provide equal
opportunity, we reverse the 4th Circuit's final judgment in this case.
...

Neither recent nor distant history bears out Virginia's alleged
pursuit of diversity through single-sex educational options. In 1839,
when the state established VMI, a range of educational opportunities
for men and women was scarcely contemplated. Higher education at the
time was considered dangerous for women; reflecting widely held views
about women's proper place, the nation's first universities and
colleges--for example, Harvard in Massachusetts, William and Mary in
Virginia--admitted only men. ... VMI was not at all novel in this
respect: In admitting no women, VMI followed the lead of the state's
flagship school, the University of Virginia, founded in 1819. ...

[W]e find no persuasive evidence in this record that VMI's male-only
admission policy is in furtherance of a state policy of "diversity.''
... A purpose genuinely to advance an array of educational options, as
the Court of Appeals recognized, is not served by VMI's historic and
constant plan--a plan to "afford a unique educational benefit only to
males.'' However liberally this plan serves the state's sons, it makes
no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal
protection.

Virginia next argues that VMI's adversative method of training
provides educational benefits that cannot be made available,
unmodified, to women. Alterations to accommodate women would
necessarily be "radical,'' so "drastic,'' Virginia asserts, as to
transform, indeed "destroy,'' VMI's program. ...

It may be assumed, for purposes of this decision, that most women
would not choose VMI's adversative method. ... The issue, however, is
not whether women--or men--should be forced to attend VMI; rather, the
question is whether the state can constitutionally deny to women who
have the will and capacity, the training and attendant opportunities
that VMI uniquely affords.

The notion that admission of women would downgrade VMI's stature,
destroy the adversative system and, with it, even the school, is a
judgment hardly proved, a prediction hardly different from other
self-fulfilling prophecies, once routinely used to deny rights or
opportunities. When women first sought admission to the bar and access
to legal education, concerns of the same order were expressed. ...

Women's successful entry into the federal military academies, and
their participation in the nation's military forces, indicate that
Virginia's fears for the future of VMI may not be solidly grounded. The
state's justification for excluding all women from citizen-soldier
training for which some are qualified, in any event, cannot rank as
"exceedingly persuasive,'' as we have explained and applied that
standard. ...

In the second phase of the litigation, Virginia presented its
remedial plan--maintain VMI as a male-only college and create vwil as a
separate program for women. The plan met district court approval. The
4th Circuit, in turn, deferentially reviewed the state's proposal and
decided that the two single-sex programs directly served Virginia's
reasserted purposes: single-gender education and achieving the results
of an adversative method in a military environment. ...

VWIL affords women no opportunity to experience the rigorous
military training for which VMIis famed. ...

VWIL students receive their "leadership training'' in seminars,
externships, and speaker series, episodes and encounters lacking the
physical rigor, mental stress, minute regulation of behavior, and
indoctrination in desirable values made hallmarks of VMI's
citizen-soldier training. Kept away from the pressures, hazards, and
psychological bonding characteristic of VMI's adversative training,
VWIL students will not know the feeling of tremendous accomplishment
commonly experienced by VMI's successful cadets. ...

In myriad respects other than military training, VWIL does not
qualify as VMI's equal. VWIL's student body, faculty, course offerings,
and facilities hardly match VMI's. Nor can the VWIL graduate anticipate
the benefits associated with VMI 's 157-year history, the school's
prestige, and its influential alumni network. ...

Virginia, in sum, while maintaining VMI for men only, has failed to
provide any comparable single-gender women's institution. Instead, the
commonwealth has created a VWIL program fairly appraised as a "pale
shadow'' of VMI in terms of the range of curricular choices and faculty
stature, funding, prestige, alumni support, and influence. ...

VMI ... offers an educational opportunity no other Virginia
institution provides, and the school's prestige--associated with its
success in developing "citizen soldiers''--is unequaled. Virginia has
closed this facility to its daughters and, instead, has devised for
them a "parallel program,'' with a faculty less impressively
credentialed and less well-paid, more limited course offerings, fewer
opportunities for military training and for scientific specialization.
VMI, beyond question, possesses to a far greater degree than the VWIL
program those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement
but which make for greatness in a school, including position and
influence of the alumni, standing in the community, traditions, and
prestige. Women seeking and fit for a VMI-quality education cannot be
offered anything less, under the state's obligation to afford them
genuinely equal protection.

A prime part of the history of our Constitution, historian Richard
Morris recounted, is the story of the extension of constitutional
rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded. VMI's story
continued as our comprehension of "We the People'' expanded. There is
no reason to believe that the admission of women capable of all the
activities required of VMI cadets would destroy the institute rather
than enhance its capacity to serve the "more perfect Union.'' ..

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.